Study finds belief in free market economics predicts rejection of science

[xchrom]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/study-finds-belief-in-free-market-economics-predicts-rejection-of-science/



A strong belief in a hands off approach to economics is tightly linked to the rejection of scientific facts such as climate change, according to research published in Psychological Science in late March.

“The conspiracist ideation that all of the world’s scientific academies have conspired together to create a hoax known as global warming has found traction in American mainstream politics,” Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia and his colleagues wrote in their study.

In particular, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has alleged that thousands of scientists working independently over decades are actually part of “the greatest hoax” to increase regulation on businesses and individuals.

The study of 1,377 people who visited climate change denial blogs found endorsement of laissez-faire free markets predicted the rejection of climate science and other established scientific facts, such as that HIV causes AIDS or that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer.

[RKP5637]

1. I can smell him from here ... POS. n/t

[NightWatcher]

2. Free market...trickle down...anti-science ...Republicans

It strikes me as funny as to how they are 100% wrong (even the polar opposite) all the time. Has a Repuke ever been right?

[denverbill]

3. When your religion is Ayn Rand, you reject everything which conflicts with that religion.

[Javaman]

4. Remember the old saying of "mind over matter"...

with this guy it's...

Money over mind.

[Recursion]

5. As someone who's taken a lot of econ I find "free market" theology amusing

Free market theory is very powerful in a very limited set of circumstances. Economists talking about free markets are like physicists talking about frictionless inclined planes: they're a useful reasoning tool, but not something an engineer will actually use.

[Patiod]

10. Reminds me of my favorite Econ joke

So some normal people and one economist fell in a steep hole, and the politicians were sure they were going to starve and die in the hole.

But the economist was not upset. He was sure they could get out easily.

"How?" asked the others in the hole.

"First, imagine a ladder....."

There is NO SUCH THING as a free market. There are always some rules and regulations, and it therefore ceases to be a totally free market.

A bit dense, but if you're taken a lot of Econ, you might appreciate http://www.amazon.com/The-Illusion-Free-Markets-Punishment/dp/0674066162.

[Purplehazed]

13. Wouldn't .......

the "black market" be an example of a free market? The commodities, drugs, sex, guns etc. might be regulated but there are no market rules.

[Patiod]

14. Yeah, but without the rules AGAINST the substances being traded

their market value wouldn't be so high. So the rules are still influencing the price, if only indirectly.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. You may enjoy this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1022162

[Fawke Em]

6. Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[spanone]

7. yea jimmy, those conspiring scientists....what a fucking moron.

good lord, where are these people hatched?

the depths of his ignorance.

[n2doc]

8. What these idiots believe in isn't 'free market'

It is 'rigged market'. They fight change and upstarts because they are too stupid and lazy to take advantage of new opportunities. It is the way of capitalism- grow powerful enough to squash your competitors and set up a monopoly.

[Warpy]

9. That just means some people believe in fairy dust and unicorn farts

and they find science a bringdown that hurts their heads.

Magical thinkers abound in this country. You'd think we'd be better at sorting them out so we could keep them away from real power.

[Rex]

12. LOL!

It is funny watching someone like Pat Robertson denounce wizards and then in the next breath start chanting to his God on live TV.

Pat uses a +5 microphone.

[pampango]

11. If you reject climate science and medical science, why would you accept economic science?

As Krugman often points out, conservatives live in a evidence-free environment. Since all science is based on evidence, it is not surprising that those that reject evidence and prefer to govern using fear, suspicion and religion would reject all kinds of sciences.

If you do not believe in cause and effect relationships in climate change, AIDS and lung cancer, then the government has no role to play in them (a free market approach to climate change and medical science). Why then would you believe the government has a role to play in economics?

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Because its not science, most of it is unfounded assumptions and speculations. n/t

[pampango]

21. Mr. Krugman would disagree. That's why he goes to the trouble to discredit 'austerity' economics.

If he thought it was all "unfounded assumptions and speculations", I doubt that he would be so hard on the 'free market' economists who promote 'austerity'.

The point of the OP was not that economics is not a science. It was that those who do not believe in science of climate change or the medical science pertaining to HIV/AIDS and tobacco/lung cancer also do not believe economics is a science and prefer a no-science, let-the-market-do-what-it-wants philosophy.

I suspect that climate 'free marketeers' don't want taxes or regulations on carbon emissions, medical 'free marketeers' don't want taxes and regulations on tobacco or alcohol and economic 'free marketeers' don't want taxes and regulations on economic activity, because they do not believe in science underlying those taxes and regulations. The reason that most liberals eschew 'free market' economics (or 'free market' climate science or a 'free market' medical approach to HIV/AIDS) and want an effective level of taxes and regulations on businesses is that we believe there is an evidence-based, cause-and-effect relationship (if that does not meet your definition of 'science' so be it) between those policies and an outcome that we prefer.

[bemildred]

16. Now that is priceless. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Free markets my ass.

These are the same people that try to ban things like vibrators via mail order under obscenity laws. Right wing two faced dirtbags.

[undeterred]

18. The Invisible Hand

[MynameisBlarney]

19. Well...

not at all surprising really.
After all, they're generally the same people pushing both.

[MisterP]

22. I can see two routes for this:

1) from a material approach, laissez-faire and denialism are both funded/created by the likes of DuPont and
2) from an ideological approach, they've believed in Edward Teller/Robert Heinlein/Herman Kahn 40s-vintage "peacedemocapitaliscience" for so long that it's become hegemonic; neoliberalism (whether as an economic policy or as a religion-substitute) can't countenance the idea of *consequences*: global warming, anti-tobacco, and conservation are Green Commie Puritan anti-growth plots, which nobody really believes in but nevertheless push in order to undermine capitalism

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. I say, quiz them next about Reagan...

See how many consider him to be a saint.

Also see how many know about Iran Contra and his support of the Mujahedin who paved the way for the Taliban. I bet these people also believe we need a missile shield too.

[on point]

24. If you believe in the magic hand you are likely to have other magical notions